In a prominent political statement, Suleiman Franjieh stressed that Lebanon has never been far from the furnace of war taking place in the region, noting that recent events have conclusively demonstrated the extent of the intertwined axes of the conflict and their direct impact on the Lebanese internal situation.
In the context of an interview with Al-Jumhuriya newspaper in an article by journalist Imad Marmal, Franjieh stated: “We are part of an axis in the region, and this axis is interconnected, and we all know that when Iran is attacked, Hezbollah’s turn will come sooner or later, and it is only a matter of time. Therefore, we had no illusion that Lebanon could remain immune from this war, because Israel was not in the mood to neutralize it in the first place, whether the missiles were fired from the south or not.” “It gets fired.”
He continued, saying: “The question that was raised was: Is the resistance ready to engage in confrontation after the setback of the 2024 war or not? Has it restored its capabilities? It became clear with the start of the war that the party had regained much of its strength, which surprised enemies and friends alike.”
He insisted on his steadfast support for the resistance, declaring: “I was and still am with the resistance against Israel and the aggression, and the issue is not a win or a loss, but rather a principled choice based on the criterion of truth. I stand without hesitation by the resistance, because the aggression against the country and the occupation of the land impose resistance without reason, and I will discuss the reasons later, but in the heat of the battle it is not permissible to be preoccupied with holding Hezbollah accountable and ignoring the Israeli threat to Lebanon.”
Franjieh expressed his satisfaction with the course of affairs on the ground, saying: “If the resistance wins, we win with it, and if it loses, God forbid, we lose with it honorably, but we will not deviate from our convictions, and I would rather lose while I am in the front row defending my principles, than win in the back row in exchange for circumstantial gains.”
He stressed that he “defends Lebanon’s true sovereignty, Arabism, unity, and civil peace,” considering that some of those who raise the banner of sovereignty are “far from it in their behavior.”
He strongly criticized the government’s decision to ban Hezbollah’s activities, describing it as “illegal and issued under international and regional pressure,” considering that those who bet on the fall of Iran and Hezbollah “made a mistake in their calculations and rushed into unwise decisions.”
He also expressed his surprise at the calls for direct negotiations with Israel, stressing that any negotiations must take place in coordination with Arab countries and with comprehensive Lebanese cover, and aim for “a true peace that guarantees rights, not free surrender.”
He pointed out that Hezbollah’s steadfastness on the ground strengthens the position of the Lebanese state in any future negotiations, calling for this to be exploited to improve the terms of any future settlement.
He continued, saying: “A settlement is inevitably coming, but what is important is to improve its conditions in a way that serves the Lebanese interest. The longer field stability continues, the closer we will get to a balanced settlement. Otherwise, a settlement will be imposed based on the American-Israeli axis.”
He warned against moving toward peace with Israel “at any cost,” considering that what Tel Aviv seeks is surrender, and said: “Lebanon must be the last to sign after its rights are guaranteed.”
Regarding the arms issue, he renewed his support for confining it to the hands of the state, asking: “In the hands of which state? And where is the state capable of protecting the Lebanese?”, recalling the events of 1975 when Lebanese groups were forced to take up arms in the absence of the state.
Franjieh warned that Tel Aviv is striving to ignite strife, and all Lebanese must be wary of this plan so as not to turn it into fuel for it, considering that targeting the Ain Saadeh area comes in the context of escalating tension and preparing the ground for internal fighting.
Franjieh called on some reckless political leaders to stop using hate speech, warning that what they are doing is like someone playing with a bomb that could explode at any moment, and stressing the need to resort to an honest national dialogue after the end of the war, so that we can all agree on how to face the challenges of the next stage.
He stressed that the arms issue can only be addressed through dialogue between Iran and America on the one hand, and between the Lebanese components on the other hand, indicating that he refuses to disarm by force so as not to cause a civil war that compensates Israel for its failures, without this meaning that he opposes the principle of arms exclusivity, but rather on the basis of national understanding and building confidence between the state and the Shiite component, which neither the diplomatic option nor the Lebanese army could protect.
Franjieh said: “We and the Shiites remain side by side in this country, and no one can cancel the other or dispense with him. Rather, we are doomed to continue together. Therefore, whoever incites hatred is concerned with paying attention to the fact that the Shiites are his partners in the homeland, and will remain with them on one land after the Israeli occupier leaves, and therefore he must think about the next day after the war.”
Franjieh praised the awareness of the Sunni leaders who avoided falling into the trap of sectarian strife, and most of them resorted to adopting responsible language in approaching the repercussions of the Israeli aggression and away from sectarian incitement and mobilization.
He also praised the wisdom of the Army Commander, General Rudolph Heikal, considering that anyone who tries to drag the army into a confrontation with Hezbollah is pushing it into division, and this is a major prohibition that should not be allowed.
Regarding the Christian arena, he saw that the problem lies in the ongoing “rally” between the Free Patriotic Movement and the Lebanese Forces to win the populist cup at the expense of national and Christian interests.
Regarding the government’s performance, its president, Nawaf Salam, criticized, saying: “I do not understand how he previously supported the Palestinian resistance and today rejects the Lebanese resistance.”
He also criticized the performance of Foreign Minister Youssef Raji, considering that he decided to expel the Iranian ambassador based on an external request, challenging him, if he were truly sovereign, to take the same measure against other ambassadors who interfere in small details, and in fact they are essentially the ones who formed the government to which he belongs.
Franjieh concluded: “If our line wins in the field, the government should fall after the war, and if their line wins, it will continue. This is the equation, quite simply.”
